Sarkozy visit to Damascus signals thaw in relationsIan Black, Middle East editor
Yüklə 81,13 Kb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- NYTIMES Bid for Impunity………………………………………..……4 MA’AN NEWS AGENCY
- INDEPENDENT Troubles like these are brewing all over the Middle East….17 DAILY TELEGRAPH
- Political Crisis in Lebanon Gives New Sway to Syria
- HOME PAGE UN tribunal to link Irans Khamenei to Hariri murder
- HOME PAGE Bid for Impunity
- HOME PAGE Lebanon in crisis
- Uri Averny is a long-time peace activist in Israel HOME PAGE Report in SA: Group wants Livni arrested
- HOME PAGE Tunisias Jasmine Revolution
- Mona Eltahawy is an Egyptian-born writer and lecturer on Arab and Muslim issues. HOME PAGE Troubles like these are brewing all over the Middle East
- HOME PAGE Tunisia riots: neighbours will be watching Tunisia nervously
- HOME PAGE US sends ambassador to Syria for the first time in six years
- Syrian influence in Lebanon, its tiny neighbor to the West which has plunged once more into crisis with the collapse on Wednesday of the coalition government.
- HOME PAGE NYTIMES: For Lebanese, Crisis Has Become a Way of Life .. HOME PAGE
Sat. 15 Jan. 2011 WALL STREET JOURNAL
JERUSALEM POST
NYTIMES
MA’AN NEWS AGENCY
YEDIOTH AHRONOTH
WASHINGTON POST
INDEPENDENT
DAILY TELEGRAPH
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
HOME PAGE Political Crisis in Lebanon Gives New Sway to Syria FARNAZ FASSIHI Wall Street Journal, 15 Jan. 2011, BEIRUT—The main Lebanese factions in the political dispute that brought down the government here Wednesday are looking to Syrian President Bashar Assad for support—underscoring Syria's resurgence as a major player in the region. Lebanon's Parliament is set to pick a prime minister on Tuesday after two days of debate in the legislature—but the country's political future could be decided in Damascus this weekend. Prime Minister Saad Hariri was ousted from the post by opposition ministers led by Hezbollah, the militant Shiite political party, on Wednesday, over Mr. Hariri's refusal to reject a United Nations-backed tribunal investigating the assassination of his father, a former prime minister. The tribunal is expected in the coming weeks to indict members of Hezbollah for roles in the assassination. Damascus and Hezbollah, which also has Iran's backing, have sought to stall the indictments. Lebanon's main daily newspaper, An Nahar, reported that Hezbollah ministers withdrew from the cabinet following a call by Mr. Assad for their resignations. The collapse created the worst political crisis Lebanon has seen in over two years. Independent parliamentarian Walid Jumblatt, whose Druze bloc has enough seats to deliver a majority to whichever candidate he chooses, was set to meet with Mr. Assad in Damascus on Saturday. Supporters of Mr. Hariri said they were hoping Mr. Jumblatt would convince the Syrian leader to endorse the prime minister's return to office. Mr. Hariri arrived in Lebanon on Friday after meetings seeking support in Washington, France and Turkey. By Lebanese law, the prime minister must be appointed from the Sunni sect. Hezbollah has said it would block Mr. Hariri's reinstatement, and threatened to force new legislative elections, extending the political uncertainty, if he is chosen. The political crisis positions Mr. Assad between Iran, which with Syria has long backed Hezbollah, and the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, which back Mr. Hariri. The situation is a test of Washington's diplomatic outreach to Syria, an effort by the Obama administration to sway Damascus away from Iran's influence. Syria's relations with the U.S. soured after the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Washington recalled its ambassador to Syria after massive demonstrations in Beirut blaming Syria for the incident, a car bombing that killed 22 people. Those protests led to the end of Syria's 30-year military presence in Lebanon. Syria has since shown it is most likely to stand by Iran and Hezbollah. "Syria is keeping all its cards on the table but ultimately it will chose what is in its best interest—and its relations with Iran and Hezbollah are far more important than the United States," said Sami Baroudi, professor of political science at Lebanese American University. Hezbollah and Syria have both denied charges that they played a role in the assassination. They both stand to suffer a blow to their reputations among their constituents and Arab public opinion, if they are declared complicit in Mr. Hariri's assassination, because he was among the most popular Sunni politicians in the region. Hezollah and Syria have tried to soften the impact of the allegations by discrediting the court—saying it was influenced by Israel and the U.S. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, spiritual leader of Hezbollah, said the court's findings were null and void. But the tribunal has had substantial Western backing, including from the U.S., and while Saad Hariri has said he wouldn't support the prosecution of Hezbollah members, he has refused to reject the findings. Syria and Saudi Arabia have tried for months to broker a deal between Hezbollah and Mr. Hariri, including efforts to convince Mr. Hariri to discredit the tribunal in the interest of stability. When those talks reached a dead end, the Lebanese opposition ministers resigned, dissolving the government. "The Saudi-Syrian efforts have played a positive role in maintaining truce in the country….A real opportunity to serve Lebanon that was lost," Saad Hariri said in a televised statement on Friday. HOME PAGE 'UN tribunal to link Iran's Khamenei to Hariri murder' According to separate reports, Iranian supreme leader gave order to kill former Lebanese PM; indictment due to be submitted any time. Jerusalem Post, 15 Jan. 2011,
The report suggested that the investigative body will lay out evidence showing that the murder was committed by Iran's Quds force and their allies, Hizbullah in Lebanon. The order to murder Hariri was transmitted to Hizbullah's military leader,Imad Mughniyeh, by Quds force chief Qassem Suleymani, sources told Newsmax. According to the report, Mughniyeh put together the hit team that carried out the attack, with the help of his brother-in-law. "The Iranians considered Hariri to be an agent of Saudi Arabia, and felt that killing him would pave the way for a Hizbullah takeover of Lebanon," the sources told Newsmax. Iran was not the only country involved in the assassination plot, according to the sources that spoke to Newsmax. Syrian President Bashar Aassad, and his brother-in-law, Assef Shawkat, the head of Syrian intelligence, also played key roles in the plan to murder Hariri, a source was reported as saying. The UN tribunal intended to submit a draft indictment later in the day Saturday, according to report by Lebanese daily Al Nahar. According to the Al Nahar report, the tribunal is set to hand in a draft indictment to Pre-Trial Judge Daniel Fransen in the afternoon on Saturday. HOME PAGE Bid for Impunity NYTimes Editorial, 14 Jan. 2011, In an ugly power play against justice and accountability, Hezbollah has withdrawn from Lebanon’s cabinet, bringing down the unity government of Prime Minister Saad Hariri. It must be resisted by all responsible Lebanese politicians and Arab governments, with strong support from the international community. Hezbollah says it will give its support only to a Lebanese government that abandons and denounces the international tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister and Saad Hariri’s father. The tribunal is preparing indictments, and Hezbollah members are expected to be among those charged. The elder Mr. Hariri, a Sunni Muslim, was widely respected for helping rebuild Lebanon after its civil war. If Hezbollah, a Shiite militia and political party, is implicated in his murder, it would damage the group’s claims to be a champion of broader Lebanese and Arab causes. The tribunal, backed by the United Nations and partly financed by the Lebanese government, is an important part of a multiyear effort to strengthen Lebanese institutions and re-establish the rule of law. Undermining it risks plunging Lebanon back into the era of assassinations and impunity that nearly destroyed it. Hezbollah’s move was timed to coincide with Mr. Hariri’s visit to the White House this week where he sought President Obama’s assurance of continued American support for the tribunal’s work. He got that assurance, and the president’s message was conveyed directly to Arab capitals by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France also declared his strong support. More international support for the tribunal, and Mr. Hariri, is needed, especially from the Arab world. Saudi Arabia, recently stepped back from its efforts to persuade Syria to rein in Hezbollah and help resolve the crisis. Syria’s leaders are no longer prime suspects in the Hariri inquiry. But they need to understand that any further effort to undermine Lebanon’s fragile democracy — by Syria or its client Hezbollah — will only lead to more isolation for Syria. The Syrian government needs to press Hezbollah to end its political extortion and rejoin a national unity government. Hezbollah’s huge Lebanese-Shiite electoral constituency makes it hard to ignore. But impunity for assassination is too high a price to pay for its support. Hezbollah depends on Syrian money and arms and responds to pressure from Damascus. Enlisting Syrian cooperation will be the first challenge facing Robert Ford, the new United States ambassador, who arrives in Damascus next week. HOME PAGE Lebanon in crisis Uri Averny (Israeli writer), Ma'an News Agency, 15 Jan. 2011, Lebanon is in crisis. And what is new? Since the founding of the state, 90 years ago, the word “crisis” has been inseparably linked with its name. From the Israeli perspective, this crisis has a double significance. First, it endangers the quiet on the Northern border. Every internal crisis in Lebanon can easily lead to a conflagration. Somebody in Lebanon may trigger a confrontation in order to divert attention from internal matters. Somebody in Israel may decide that that this is a good opportunity for advancing some Israeli scheme. Lebanon War III, if it breaks out – God forbid! – threatens untold destruction on both sides. Lebanon War II will look, in comparison, like a picnic. This time, all Israeli towns and villages will be within range of Hezbollah’s rockets. During the big Carmel fire, a few weeks ago, it became clear that nothing has been prepared for the defense of the rear, besides an impressive arsenal of speeches and declarations. But this Lebanese crisis is also significant on quite another level. It holds an important lesson concerning the existential question facing us now: Israel in its 1967 borders or a Greater Israel that will rule over all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. The Lebanese crisis calls out to us: Look, you have been warned! The Lebanese malaise started with a crucial decision made on the very day the state was set up. In Arab eyes, Lebanon is a part of Syria. Greater Syria – Ash-Sham in Arabic – includes the present state of Syria as well as Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Sinai. This is a basic tenet of modern Arab nationalism. During the hundreds of years of Ottoman rule in the region, there were no real borders between these provinces. The administrative divisions changed from time to time, but were unimportant. One could travel from Haifa to Damascus or from Jerusalem to Beirut without encountering any problem. Lebanon is a country of high mountain ranges, one of the most beautiful countries in the world. This topographical reality encouraged persecuted minorities from all over the region to look for refuge there. They established themselves between the mountains, organized for all-round defense, fiercely resolved to hold on to their special character. The very tolerant Ottoman rule gave each community far-reaching autonomy known as the “millet” system. Thus the Druze established themselves in the Chouf mountains, the Christian Maronite sect in the Central Mountains and the Shiites in the South. Next to them there were other Christian communities, mainly Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholics, and the Sunni Muslims. These last were concentrated mainly in the coastal towns – Tripoli, Beirut and Sidon – and not by accident. The Sunni Ottomans put them there as guardians of their empire in face of all these diverse communities. The historic change in the annals of Lebanon occurred in 1860. Until then, the two main communities – the Maronites and the Druze – lived in strained co-existence. There were many clashes between them, and for some time, Druze princes established something resembling a mini-state in the region, but the relations between them were tolerable. In 1860 the local conflicts escalated disastrously, and the Druze massacred the Christians. The Jews, too, were in danger, and the British Jew, Moses Montefiore, rushed to their aid in his coach. The world was shocked – that was a time when the world was still shocked by massacres – and the situation was exploited by the French, who had always cast covetous eyes on the “Levant.” The Istanbul government was compelled to recognize them as protector of the Christians in Lebanon. In order to defend the Christians, the Lebanese mountains were given an autonomous status within the Ottoman Empire, under French protection. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the region was divided between the two victorious powers – Great Britain and France. In a cynical betrayal of their declared aim (“national self-determination”) the French took hold of Syria (including Lebanon), while the British took possession of Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq. The Arabs were not consulted. When Emir Faisal (the brother of Abdallah) set up a Syrian kingdom in Damascus, he was brutally thrown out by the French. A later national Arab revolt against the French, led curiously enough by the Druze, was put down with great cruelty. The Muslims, who constituted the overwhelming majority in united Syria, hated the French conquerors and continued to hate them until the last day of their rule in Syria, when the British evicted them in the course of World War II with the help of the “illegal” Jewish forces in Palestine. It was in this campaign that Moshe Dayan lost his eye and gained his trademark eye patch. The main aim of French rule from its first day was to turn the Lebanon mountains into a solid French dominion, based on the Christian population. They decided to cut Lebanon off from Syria and turn it into a separate state. This separation aroused a huge storm among the Muslims, but without effect. Then there arose the crucial question that casts its shadow over Lebanon to this very day: should the Christians be satisfied with a small state, in which they would constitute a decisive majority, or should they prefer a large state and annex extensive Muslim territories. This was called in French “le Grand Liban” – Greater Lebanon. Every Israeli can easily recognize this dilemma. There is a Jewish legend in which Pharaoh was told that a newborn baby called Moses was destined to become a king. In order to test him, Pharaoh offered the baby, side by side, a golden crown and a heap of burning coals. The baby extended its hand towards the crown, but God sent an angel who pushed the hand towards the coals. Pharaoh was satisfied and Moses was saved. When the Christians in Lebanon were offered this choice, they chose the crown. Acceding to their demands, the French included in Lebanon the Muslim towns of Tripoli, Beirut, Sidon and Tyre, the Bekaa valley and the entire Shiite South. All the inhabitants of these “disputed territories,” as they were to be called, including the Shiites, opposed this violently, but to no avail. All opposition was brutally crushed by the French. Even at the founding of Greater Lebanon, the Maronites constituted a minority of the population. All the Christians together, including all the various communities, made up a bare majority. It was clear that the Muslims, with their higher birthrate, would become the majority in the Christian state before too long. This, of course, happened soon enough. The Muslims did give up their dream of turning the wheel back and returning the “disputed territories” to their Syrian homeland, but they started to struggle against the total domination of Lebanon by the Christians. In the course of time, the Christians were forced to surrender some of their privileges to the other communities. An iron-clad communal division was put in place: the president (with extensive executive powers) was always a Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, and so forth, down the line. But within a short time, this division ceased to reflect the demographic realities. To use Israeli terms: Lebanon claimed to be a “Christian and democratic state.” But as a matter of fact, it never was a democratic state, and gradually it ceased to be a Christian state as well. The short history of Lebanon consists entirely of a struggle between the communities which were joined together against their will, like cats in a sack. The struggle reached one of its peaks in the great civil war that started in 1975. The Syrians invaded the country in order to defend (how ironic!) the Christians against the Muslims, who were reinforced by the PLO which had established a kind of mini-state in the south, after being expelled from Jordan. Into this mess blundered the leaders of Israel, without having the slightest idea about the complexities of the situation. Sharon invaded Lebanon in 1982 in order to annihilate the PLO and drive the Syrians – their enemies – out. The Israeli military struck a deal with the Maronites without realizing that they were much better at committing indiscriminate massacres (Sabra and Shatila) than real fighting. Eighteen years and hundreds of dead soldiers were needed to extricate the Israeli army from this trap. The Israeli intervention had only one lasting effect, and a totally unexpected one. The Shiites in the South of Lebanon, the most downtrodden community in the country, held in utter contempt by both the Christians and the Sunnis, suddenly woke up. In their prolonged guerrilla war against the Israeli army, they became an important political and military, and finally a decisive national force in Lebanon. If Hezbollah indeed takes over the whole country, it would owe Ariel Sharon a statue in the central square of Beirut. The present crisis is a continuation of all the former crises. But during the 90 years of Lebanon’s existence as a state, profound changes have taken place. The Christians are now a secondary force, the Sunni Muslims have also seen their political importance diminished. Only the Shiites have gained ground. The present crisis started with the assassination of Rafiq Al-Hariri, the Sunni Prime Minister, whose place was filled by his son, Saad Ad-Din Rafiq Al-Hariri. (The word assassination, by the way, is derived from the medieval Shiite sect of Hashishi’in.) An international investigation was set in motion, mainly in order to damage Syria, the enemy of the US, but the traces led in the direction of Hezbollah. To forestall the report, Hezbollah and its allies (including an important Christian general) this week brought down the coalition government, of which they were a part. Saudi Arabia and Syria, recently mortal enemies, joined forces in an effort to avert a catastrophe that could easily spread throughout the region. They offered a compromise – but the US instructed its client, Hariri, to reject it. The Americans resemble – and even upstage – the Israelis in their arrogance and ignorance, which border on fatal irresponsibility. Their intervention this week, emanating from a frivolous contempt for the incredible complexity that is called Lebanon, may bring about a civil war and/or a conflagration that may involve Israel. All this would have been prevented, and 90 years of suffering might have been avoided, if the Christians had been satisfied with their part of the country. When they chose the option of “Greater Lebanon” – a clear parallel to “Greater Israel” – they condemned themselves and their country to 90 years of struggle and pain, without an end in sight. At the decisive moment, no angel diverted their hand from the golden crown to the burning coals. Now we Israelis face a very similar choice. Uri Averny is a long-time peace activist in Israel HOME PAGE Report in SA: Group wants Livni arrested Media Review Network disappointed that Jewish Board of Deputies invited 'known murderer who is a wanted criminal in many parts of the world' Yedioth Ahronoth, 15 Jan. 2011,
Following the Gaza war, the MRN and the Palestinian Solidarity Alliance submitted a dossier to the National Prosecuting Authority which cited Livni as one of the "key architects" of the "onslaught on Gaza's civilian population." "We believe that her visit to this country would be an act of provocation and are therefore deeply disappointed that her hosts - the Jewish Board of Deputies - displayed such intolerance and callousness by having a known murderer who is a wanted criminal in many parts of the world, visit SA," Jassat said. The Jewish Board of Deputies accused the MRN of playing "petty politics". "Livni has become one of Israel's leading voices for negotiations with the Palestinians with the aim of achieving peaceful co-existence between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors," the board said in a statement. "She has consistently been supportive of a viable Palestinian State, and this has won the respect of the international diplomatic community for her commitment to making peace." Spokesperson Zev Krengel said the board saw no reason why the MRN's actions should thwart or hamper Livni's visit. He confirmed that Livni's visit would go ahead. "It's pure intimidation tactics by people who do not want to see a solution to the situation in the Middle East," he added. In December 2009 an arrest warrant for Livni was issued in the UK at the request of Palestinian applicants. The warrant was revoked after it was discovered that Livni was not visiting the country. HOME PAGE Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution Mona Eltahawy, Washington Post, Saturday, January 15, 2011; For 23 years, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali presided over the most tightly run ship in the Arab world. So perfect a police state was his Tunisia, with its ubiquitous informers and portraits of the president, that no one predicted Ben Ali's ship could capsize. But capsize it did Friday, after a 29-day popular uprising against unemployment, police brutality and the regime's corruption. It was the worst unrest since Ben Ali took over. Not once in my 43 years have I thought that I'd see an Arab leader toppled by his people. It is nothing short of poetic justice that it was neither Islamists nor invasion-in-the-name-of-democracy that sent the waters rushing onto Ben Ali's ship but, rather, the youth of his country. Their rage at political and economic disenfranchisement spilled over last month with the desperate act of an unemployed man. Mohammed Bouazizi, 26, distraught when police confiscated his unlicensed produce stand, set himself on fire on Dec. 17 and died on Jan. 3. Soon, several other unemployed youth tried to commit suicide, and at least one of them did. Is there a more poignant portrayal of what ails the Arab world than images of its young people killing themselves as their leaders get older and richer? Human rights groups say more than 60 people have died in clashes with Ben Ali's security forces since Dec. 17, but Bouazizi's self-immolation has come to symbolize what many are calling the Jasmine Revolution. Tunisia is a typical Middle East country in that its population is composed largely of young people. Half the population is under 25 years of age and so have known no leader other than Ben Ali, who was only Tunisia's second president since it gained independence from France in 1956. For decades, a host of Arab dictators have justified their endless terms in office by pointing to Islamists waiting in the wings. Having both inflated the egos and power of Islamists and scared Western allies into accepting stability over democracy, those leaders were left to comfortably sweep "elections." Ben Ali was elected to a fifth term with 89.62 percent of the vote in 2009. All around him is a depressingly familiar pattern. Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi (68 years old) has been in power since 1969; Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh (64) has ruled since 1978 and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (82) since 1981. Algeria's Abdelaziz Bouteflika (73) is a relative newcomer, having been in power only since 1999. Not so much fathers as grandfathers of their nations, these autocrats cling to office - and are increasingly out of touch with their young populaces. No doubt, every Arab leader has watched Tunisia's revolt in fear while citizens across the Arab world watch in solidarity, elated at that rarity: open revolution. "Goosebumps all over. I can't believe I lived through an Arab revolution!! Thank you, Tunisia!" tweeted Gigi Ibrahim, a young Egyptian woman whose handle is Gsquare86. "The power of the masses is capable of toppling any dictatorship. Today was Tunisia. Tomorrow is Egypt, Jordan. LONG LIVE REVOLUTION!" Social media, where young Arabs organize and speak out against their respective regimes, have given the world a clear view of the thoughts, hopes and videos of Tunisians. For days, I have been glued to Twitter, on which events in Tunisia are discussed much faster than mainstream media could report them. "Tunis now: the chants continue 'No to Ben Ali even if we die,' " tweeted a Tunisian who joined the 6,000 to 7,000 protesting outside the Interior Ministry hours before Ben Ali fled. Tunisia is not a major U.S. ally. On Jan. 7, the State Department said it was concerned about the regime's online and real-life crackdown. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Jan. 12 that Washington would not take sides, infuriating those who saw a double standard in the vocal U.S. position on Iran. But others saw encouragement from Washington's reticence. U.S. leaders are "supporting us with their silence," a Tunisian told me on Twitter. "If they say anything, we will lose." As Arabs everywhere marvel, those in Tunis still seem grounded. Even as Prime Minister Mohammed Ghannoushi announced on state television Friday that he had taken over, people noted online that the acting president was part of Ben Ali's despised inner circle. Surely Ghannoushi is aware that Tunisians who have faced down live ammunition, curfews and tanks on the street the past month have little appetite for more of the same leadership. Indeed, one Tunisian tweeted me: "What is unfolding is another dictatorship, we must continue the battle!" Tunisians were fed up with not just Ben Ali but the "quasi mafia" surrounding him, as the family and cronies were described in a WikiLeaks cable, because of their "organized corruption." President Obama issued a statement on Friday in support of the Tunisian people and calling for free and fair elections. Ben Ali imprisoned or chased into exile viable alternatives to his rule, so what comes next politically is not clear. But the world is watching this small Arab country and wondering if this is the first step in ridding the region of its granddaddies. Mona Eltahawy is an Egyptian-born writer and lecturer on Arab and Muslim issues. HOME PAGE Troubles like these are brewing all over the Middle East Patrick Cockburn, Independent, 15 Jan. 2011, Is it a real revolution in Tunisia or will another member of the ruling elite succeed in replacing President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali who took flight yesterday? It is a crucial question for the rest of the Arab world where other corrupt police states face the same political, social and economic problems as Tunisia. A striking feature of the whole Middle East for more than 30 years has been the unpopularity of the regimes combined with their depressing ability to stay in power. Most have found ways of preventing revolutions or military coup d'etats through ferocious security services protecting rickety state machines that mainly function as a source of jobs and patronage. In Tunisia, Mr Ben Ali, along with other Arab leaders, presented himself as an opponent of Muslim fundamentalism and therefore won tolerance if not plaudits in Western capitals. But the revolution that is brewing across the Middle East is of a traditional model springing from high unemployment, particularly among better educated young men, and a ruling class unable to resolve any of their countries' economic problems. The most obvious parallel with Tunisia is Egypt where the sclerotic regime of President Hosni Mubarak clings to power. Will the present so-called "soft coup" work whereby Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi takes power and calms down protesters by promises of reform and elections? It does not look very likely. The declared State of Emergency is not working. There is not reason to suppose that a political leader so closely associated with the old regime will have any credibility with people in the streets. Conditions vary across the Arab world but there is plenty in common between the situation in Tunisia and that in Algeria, Jordan and Egypt. Economic and political stagnation is decades old. In some states this is made more tolerable by access to oil revenues, but even this is not enough to provide jobs for educated youths who see their path blocked by a corrupt elite. There are echoes of the Tunisian crisis in other countries. In Jordan the security forces have been battling rioters in Maan, a traditional site of unrest in the past where the government has difficulty coping. In Kuwait there was an attack by security forces in December on academic and members of parliament. Food prices have been going up. Yet all these regimes that are now in trouble had a carefully cultivated image in the west of being "moderate" and anti-fundamentalist. In the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, President George Bush and Tony Blair made much of their democratic agenda for the Middle East, but when one of the few democratic elections to take place in the region produced victory for Hamas among the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, the US did everything to thwart the outcome of the poll. The Middle East still has a reputation for coups but a striking feature of the region since the early 1970s is how few of the regimes have changed. The forces behind the Tunisian events are not radically new but they are all the more potent for being so long suppressed. Western governments have been caught on the hop because explosions of social and economic frustration have been long predicted but have never happened. The extent of the uprising is yet to be defined and the Tunisian army evidently hopes that the departure of Mr Ben Ali may be enough for the government to restore its authority. The generals could be right, but the shootings over the last month failed to work. There is no particular reason why the same tactics should start to work now. HOME PAGE Tunisia riots: neighbours will be watching Tunisia nervously President Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali's 23-year dictatorship fell to the first People Power revolution of the Arab World last night. Many of his neighbours will now be casting a nervous eye over their own disaffected, youthful populations. Richard Spencer, Daily Telegraph, 14 Jan. 2011, The Middle East was a place where, in the 20th Century, political change happened through war and coup. Leaders disappeared in the night, jailed and shot. One Iraqi predecessor of Saddam Hussein, himself hanged live on mobile phone video, had his body publicly displayed and abused on state television. In the 21st century things will be different. The internet has brought people closer to their leaders. It is they who will determine their futures, not the ambitions and ideologies of their generals. Mr Ben Ali may also have been the first victim of Wikileaks. Cables by an American ambassador giving colourful descriptions of the lives of luxury pursued by his family, and the business empire it controlled, were eagerly emailed around the country, despite a repressive system of censorship. Descriptions by other ambassadors of other leaders' political and personal attitudes have not been much less graphic. On the plus side, protesters also seemed to understand that despite the deaths of scores of rioters, there were limits to how far modern leaders could go in maintaining their rule by force. Maybe that was also a lesson of the crushing of Saddam Hussein, who knew no such limits, by George Bush and Tony Blair. In the 1980s, from Iran to the Philippines, American-backed autocrats were forced to bow to the wishes of the crowds who had filled the streets, chanting slogans. Tunisia, one analyst pointed out, is not dissimilar to Iran. It has a well-educated youth, but economic stagnation and widespread corruption. President Ben Ali's public mea culpa on Thursday night, when he told the police to put their guns away and promised to quit in 2014, showed he intended to follow the Iran of 1979 rather than that of 2009. He was prepared to use force, but not overwhelming force. He must have thought he was saving his regime. But dictatorships ultimately rely on the threat of state violence and the demonstrators smelled fear and pressed ahead, defying curfews and police gunmen. The Iranian revolution 30 years ago was followed by the sounding of crashing dictatorships for a decade, ending in the final implosion of the Soviet Union. Is a revolution in Tunisia similarly contagious? The conditions in neighbours such as Egypt are rather different. They have the same economic stagnation, it is true: even Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer, has shockingly high youth unemployment and surprisingly low incomes. But these countries also have much lower educational attainment.and a less developed sense of political accountability. Their state apparatuses are more oppressive. But they now have to consider whether, should their turn come, they will give up so easily. What comes next for Tunisia is one thing. President Ben Ali had at least taught its young in the ways of the world. A third went to college and university, women's rights were enshrined, and progress is seen in western terms. The West will be hoping that, this time, promises of constitutional, democratic rule are fulfilled. But even if that happens there is little room for complacency. Elsewhere the opposition lying in wait are not so westernised, not so well-educated, and are not calling for liberal reforms. They are all too often demanding sharia instead. HOME PAGE US sends ambassador to Syria for the first time in six years US ambassador Robert Ford faces a daunting list of diplomatic concerns in Syria. If he fails to make headway, the Senate could bring him home by year's end. Nicholas Blanford, Christian Science Monitor, 14 Jan. 2011, After nearly a six-year frost in US-Syrian diplomatic relations, newly appointed American ambassador Robert Ford is scheduled to arrive tomorrow in Damascus, where he will face a daunting list of diplomatic concerns. The icy relations between Damascus and Washington during the Bush era may have thawed somewhat, but President Barack Obama's efforts to reengage have made little headway on key issues. They include: • a resumption of long-stalled peace talks between Syria and Israel • an investigation into suspected Syrian nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency • Syrian support for organizations such as Lebanon’s militant Shiite Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas, both of which are designated by the US as terrorist groups • Syrian influence in Lebanon, its tiny neighbor to the West which has plunged once more into crisis with the collapse on Wednesday of the coalition government. Washington recalled its previous ambassador, Margaret Scobey, for “urgent consultations” in February 2005, a day after the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, in which Syria was widely suspected as a culprit. Although there was no formal severance of diplomatic relations, Ms. Scobey never returned to the embassy in Damascus. In June 2009, Obama announced that he was sending a new US ambassador to Damascus, but it was not until seven months later that he named Ford, a career diplomat, as the new head of mission. Even then, Ford’s departure was delayed because the Senate refused to confirm his appointment due to its opposition to returning an ambassador to Syria. Obama took advantage of the Senate recess last month to sign off on several diplomatic appointments, including Ford, allowing the new ambassador to take up his position. Ford, who has extensive diplomatic experience in the Middle East, arrives at a moment of renewed speculation over the possibility of movement on the long moribund Syria-Israel peace track following the collapse of the Israel-Palestinian track in November. Traditionally, in Middle East peacemaking, when one of the two peace tracks crumbles, attention switches to the other. Speculation aside, analysts doubt that a breakthrough in Israeli-Syrian talks is imminent. Although Ford is likely to have his hands full juggling multiple diplomatic files, his term in Damascus may be short-lived. The Senate still has to confirm his posting, a procedure that must take place before the end of the year. If the Senate votes against the appointment, Ford may find himself back in Washington sooner than he might have hoped. Much depends on whether Syria’s stance in the coming months can persuade the Senate to set aside any misgivings they have for the Arab state. “If [the Syrians] pocket the appointment and don't make any major changes in policy – which is largely what they have done so far – Ford is unlikely to clear Senate confirmation,” says Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “If they do make major changes or there are US-sponsored Syrian-Israeli talks, then he would likely stay and wade through the stack of issues between the two countries. Either way it's going to be a tough job.”
NYTIMES: 'For Lebanese, Crisis Has Become a Way of Life'..
Yüklə 81,13 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|